Exhibitors Herald (Sep-Dec 1918)

EXHIBITORS HERALD AND MOTOGRAPKY J. D. WILLIAMS DEFENDS PICKFORD CONTRACT Executive of "First National" Replying to "Herald" Editorial Claims Public Demand Fixes Stars' Salaries; Asserts Loading of Star Pictures with Inferior Product is Death-Trap of Industry. THE following comprehensive review of the controversy in reference to stars' salaries has been received from Mr. J. D. Williams, manager of the First National Exhibitors Circuit, Inc. The statement lucidly and forcibly presents the argument that the great remuneration paid to certain players is due simply to the figure automatically placed upon their services by public demand. Mr. Williams points out that a great evil of distribution as generally carried on is that productions of the star players are used as a lever to increase the sales of inferior productions on the various programs. THE statement, while an able presentation of Mr. Williams' views on the entire subject, in certain points is not in accord with the position assumed by this publication. In consequence, the subject will be re-opened editorially in a subsequent issue. Mr. Williams' communication follows: Mr. Martin J. Quigley, Publisher, Exhibitors' Herald and Motography, 417 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, 111. Dear Mr. Quigley: In your issue of November 16th, you publish an editorial criticism of the contract recently concluded between First National Exhibitors Circuit and Miss Mary Pickford as an action which "resolves itself into one of great import to the entire industry, as it is carrying on a practice which must one day be abandoned unless the entire industry is content to work for the extravagant remuneration of a handful of players." As a simile for the relations between exhibitors, distributors and producers, permit me to ask you whether Exhibitors' Herald and Motography owes its success and popularity with its readers to the mechanical portion of your equipment which sets its text in type and prints the pages and the mails which distribute it to your subscribers, or to the executive ability and editorial genius of Martin J. Quigley? Does the fact that your printer has a big investment in plant and materials necessary to the actual printing of your trade journal warrant a charge to you for performing that service each week which would leave you a comparatively small net profit for your efforts and the ability manifested in your work? Would you, with your liberal and revolutionary views in many directions, feel that it would be fair if the postoffice department should say to those subscribers: "You cannot receive Mr. Quigley's publication through the government mails unless you also subscribe to Motion Picture Ne;cs, Exhibitors Trade Reviciv and the Moving Picture World. We know that certain individuals among you consider Mr. Quigley's trade journal pre-eminent, but these other publications represent an income to this department for handling and you cannot have the paper you want without paying tor and receiving the others as well. There is no alternative. We have a monopoly of the talents and abilities of these trade journal publishers, because we control Mr. Williams' Challenge Mr. Williams in his state \ ment printed here says: I should like to chal \ lenge yon to invite fifty representative exhibitors among your subscribers to state, for publication, the amount of money they have been compelled by exchanges to spend in the last year in rentals for unprofitable pictures — productions which they k n e zv, in a dv an c e , would not bring business to their theatres — to obtain the productions of stars of known box-office value. Mr. Williams suggests limiting the invitation to "fifty representative exhibitors," but we believe that a candid answer to this question by a larger number of exhibitors would be productive of a great deal of interesting results. We accept Mr. Williams' challenge and hereby extend a general invitation to exhibitors to send in their answers to his question, addressing them to The Publisher, Exhititors Herald and Motography, 41/ South \ Dearborn street, Chicago. 23 J. D. WILLIAMS distribution to their markets — the exhibitors. You will either take all of them each week, so that our revenue may increase, or do without Mr. Quigley's paper." Such a dictum from the postoffice department would arouse you to a fighting pitch. And yet you defend an almost identical condition in the motion picture industry. And it is a condition which is the greatest obstacle in the path to success traveled by your readers — the exhibitors. On what precedent do you predicate your statement that "those who are responsible for the continued success of this business are the men of intelligence and executive ability who have invested their money and who have made 'jobs' for the players." The theatre-going public has established the values in our industry. And we are certain that if you will check off a list of individuals among stars and producers, you will find a surprisingly small percentage, in comparison to the total number, who are more than ordinary in their personal ability to win public favor by quality and who then can retain that favor through continued and consistent quality. Is it fair to the exhibitors, who, in the last analysis, pay the bills, is it fair for the individual star or producer of unusual ability and consequent exceptional popularity with the public, for a distributor who has the productions of that particular star or producer under contract, to compel exhibitors to book releases featuring players of minor importance and no drawing power, as the penalty and premium for renting the productions they know will pay them a good profit? * * * I should like to challenge you to invite fifty representative exhibitors among your subscribers to state, for publication, the amount of money they have been compelled by exchanges to